Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Documentation: of: Document graph bindings

[Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

On 10/03/14 07:53, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 08/03/14 14:25, Grant Likely wrote:
> 
>> Sure. If endpoints are logical, then only create the ones actually
>> hooked up. No problem there. But nor do I see any issue with having
>> empty connections if the board author things it makes sense to have them
>> in the dtsi.
> 
> I don't think they are usually logical, although they probably might be
> in some cases.

The endpoint nodes are supposed to be logical, they just group properties
describing a port's configuration.

> As I see it, a "port" is a group of pins in a hardware component, and
> two endpoints define a connection between two ports, which on the HW
> level are the wires between the ports.
> 
> So a port with two endpoints is a group of pins, with wires that go from
> the same pins to two different components.

It could be approximated like this, but I don't think it is needed.
I would rather stay with only port nodes mapped to hardware and the
endpoint nodes logical.

--
Regards,
Sylwester
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html